Karnataka Court June 2008 Judgments

Sri. Durgappa Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ226; ILR2008KAR3759; 2008(5)KarLJ668; 2008(4)KCCR2177

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC on a trial held by the Magistrate, Chitradurga and confirmed in Crl.A. No. 46/2006 by the Sessions Court.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:It is alleged that on 14.05.2005 at about 4.30p.m. while the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No. KA-17/F-427 from Chitradurga to Chikkappanahalli, near Madanayakanahalli, the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, the bus hit the house of P W-1 situate on the right side of the road and having caused injuries to PWs 1 and 3, the owner of the house and a passenger in the bus.After the accident, PW-1 approached PW-7, the PSI, Chitradurga Police Station and submitted the complaint Ex.P1, which came to be registered in Cr. No. 85/2005 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 427, 337 and 338 of IPC ...

Smt. Siddalingamma Vs. Smt. Gangamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3907; 2008(5)KLJ678; 2008(4)KCCR2169

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The question that is involved in this appeal is whether against the decision of the lower appellate court remanding the matter to the trial court with a direction to return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the proper court gives rise to second appeal being preferred under Section 100 of the C.P.C. or not.2. The facts which have given rise to this question being raised briefly stated are to the effect that the appellant herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and the trial court after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court questioning the said decision of the trial court. The learned judge of the lower appellate court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit property was worth more than Rs. 7 lakhs and therefore the trial court had no ...

K. Venkatesh Vs. the Principal Home Secretary, Government of India and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR5109; 2009(4)KarLJ156

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. A Departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner according to the procedure laid down in Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules'). He is visited with the penalty of dismissal from service with effect from 31.03.2005. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate Authority has also confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. A revision was preferred to the Inspector General of Police, who pursuant to order at Annexure-A has confirmed the order of dismissal as well as the holding of departmental enquiry.2. The facts germane for disposal of this petition can be summarized as follows:The petitioner joined the services of the respondent. As on the date when the departmental enquiry was initiated under two articles of charges, he was working in Battalion 174. The premise of the charges is that when the petitioner was working as ...

Smt. C.V. Chitra Wife of Prasad Rao M.L. and ors. Vs. the State of Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioners are all employees of the High Court of Karnataka They axe the applicants for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Petitioners have presented this writ petition challenging the communication dated 01.03.2007 issued to them individually rejecting their applications on the ground that they were not eligible to apply for the post as per the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules, 2004) and the Notification dated 01.04.2006 calling for applications, according to which enrollment as Advocate is an essential qualification. The applicants have also challenged the validity of the Recruitment Rules, 2004, in so far as they require that enrollment as Advocate is an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). They have further sought for either quashing the Notification advertising the posts and calling for applications or a direction to the respondents to c...

Yallappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by State P.O.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3207; 2008(5)KarLJ469

A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 302, 448, 354 read with 511 of IPC on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Dharwad.2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:PW.6 Shivanand, the husband of the deceased Susheela is a resident of Inchal, Taluk Saudatti and was residing in a rented house owned by Hanamawwa (PW.13). He was a supplier in a hotel and as usual on 12.7.2004 in the morning at about 5.30 a.m., he went to the hotel for his work and his wife Susheela was alone in the house. At about 6.00 p.m., when he was working in the hotel, Shankrawwa (PW.21), the mother of the accused informed on phone to come home urgently and accordingly, Shivanand (PW.6) went to his house and when he tapped the door of his house, his wife Susheela did not open the door and therefore, Hanamawwa (PW.13) and Shivanand (PW.6) went towards the back side and found that the back door was ope...

High Court of Karnataka Represented by Its Registrar General Vs. C. Ra ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3422; 2008(6)KarLJ371; ILR2008(3)Kar3422; 2008(6)KLJ371; 2008(3)KCCR2134; 2008(5)AIRKarR486; AIR2008NOC2769(DB)

ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Sri. S. Doreraju appearing for the accused.2. This Contempt Petition is initiated suo-moto by this Court on receipt of a notice addressed to three Hon'ble Judges of this Court making scandalous allegations against them. A copy of this notice was also sent by the accused to the Registrar (General). On going through the same, as it was felt that it is scandalous in nature bringing down the dignity of the Judges in particular and the Judicial Institution in general, this contempt case was registered against him.3. Notice was ordered to the accused, who on appearance as party-in-person filed a detailed statement of objections. After going through the objections and hearing the accused in person, as this Court was not satisfied with the explanation offered and was also prima-facie of the view that the material in question was scandalous, per se. proceeded to frame charges. The trial was held. During the trial, the Registrar (General) was ...

Lakshmana Nayaka Alias Lakshma Nayak Vs. Nanjungud Rural Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4451; 2008(5)KarLJ683

A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a trial held by the Fast Track Court, Mysore.2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:The accused is the husband of the deceased Lakshmi. Their marriage took place about 18 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have two sons and two daughters. About 1 1/2 years earlier to the incident, the accused started abusing and assaulting his wife suspecting her fidelity and chastity. Thereby, the deceased went to her parental home along with her son Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 5). The remaining children were residing with the accused. The deceased had informed her brothers Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 1), Mahadevanayaka (P.W. 2) and Chikkannayaka (P.W. 9) regarding the abuse and the assault by her husband and they had also advised the accused and asked him to lead a happy matrimonial life and had sent...

Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ215; 2008(5)KarLJ551

A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a trial held by the Fast Track Court-V, Mysore.2. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:Lakshmi (P.W. 1) is the wife of the accused and Madashetty (P.W. 2) is her father. Mahadeva (deceased) was the son of Madashetty (P.W. 2) and brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1), whereas Sunanda (P.W. 7) is the wife of Mahadeva (deceased). Somanna (C.W. 1) is the younger brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1). The marriage of Lakshmi (P.W. 1) was held with the accused about 8 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have a female child aged about 7 years. The accused was a drunkard and was not providing food and clothes to his wife and she was harassed by cruel treatment of the accused and therefore, about 3 months earlier to the incident she came to the house of her father Madashetty (P.W. 2) alo...

People Charity Fund and ors. Vs. K. Raghava Reddy and Associates

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ562; 2009(1)AIRKarR367; AIR2009NOC871(D.B)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-2-2007 in O.S. No. 2495 of 1987 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent herein to enforce the agreement of sale dated 13-6-1984. The suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed. Challenging the judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.4. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is represented by its partner, Sri K. Raghava Reddy. The 1st defendant is a charitable trust. The defendants 2 to 4 are the trustees. The suit scheduled property was owned by one B. Ramalingam, who was the creator and author of the 1st defendant-trust, which was created for the benefit of general public. The suit property consists of a residential house and a vacant site bearing Munici...

Smt. Fatchiammal W/O K. Rathna Swamy Vs. K.C. Sriramalu S/O Late Cheng ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ451

K. Ramanna, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the XIV ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore in C.C. No. 26130/01 and C.C. No. 26134/01 respectively whereby the Court-below acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act mainly on the ground that the complaint filed is a premature one. Therefore aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appellant ha3 come up with these two appeals. The respondent in both the cases is one and the same.2. The case of the appellant in Crl.A. No. 887/05 is that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- during October 1999 with assurance to repay the same. For repayment of the said, amount, the respondent had issued two post-dated cheques, each for Rs. 50,000/-, dated 8.12.1999 and 17.12.99 bearing Nos.503537 and 503538, drawn on State Bank of India, Banasavadi Branch, Bangalore. When both the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned through his bank...